Buried clues about early Christianity from the context of Pliny’s letters?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
hakeem
Posts: 663
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2017 8:20 am

Re: Buried clues about early Christianity from the context of Pliny’s letters?

Post by hakeem »

Aleph One wrote: Sun Mar 21, 2021 8:25 am
hakeem wrote: Sun Mar 21, 2021 1:02 amPliny the younger does not paint Christians as harmless and that is why he executed them once they did not worship Trajan as a God. Refusing to worship Trajan as a God was a capital crime.
I tried to reply a couple times to this but deleted them as I don't think I'm equipped to take a stance without more knowledge about standard Roman laws and punishment, etc. Also the definition of "harmless" is a tough. :cheeky:
Well, since you think that you need more knowledge about standard Roman laws and punishment then you should execute those who are "harmless" before you get more knowledge. :lol:
billd89 wrote: Sun Mar 21, 2021 5:38 amAmong accused Chrestiani, it sounds like the oldest members had joined the 'free lunch cult' casually c.85 AD.
Aleph One wrote:This is kind of staring us in the face but it is a possibly significant data point to be noted: according to the letter Christianity (or Christians) came to Bithynia around 85 CE. Lots of caveats (like they could be long-time Christians who immigrated recently, or Christianity could have been there longer than any of the detainees had been members, etc.) but at least it's something solid. Also interesting when compared to presumed dates for Paul's letters, as many of the churches addressed were likewise in Asia-minor.
Do you even realise that there were multiple cults who were called Chrestians? Being called a Chrestian/Christian does not mean at all that one believes in or even knows a story of Jesus the Galilean.

The followers of Simon Magus were called Christians but only worshiped Simon as the first God.

You must have noticed that the name Jesus of Nazareth is never found in all the letters of Pliny the younger.
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: #s from the context of Pliny’s letter

Post by mlinssen »

billd89 wrote: Sun Mar 21, 2021 5:38 am Pliny is noting the old pagan faiths were stale, on the wane in his jurisdiction: separate issue, for whatever reasons. (Reptentance for neglected religious faith was wanting.) A danger - always be on the lookout - was anything 'new' 'radical' and largely 'unfamiliar'. But this cult appeared to be another rather mundane superstition, and only among the dozen or so Chrestiani confirmed. There's nothing alarmist in the #s implied.

It wasn't and hadn't been a major problem before 112 AD in this province, so Pliny was still unfamiliar with the cult. Not unknown - unfamiliar. Again, low numbers are suggested from context: presumably, a few hundred Chrestiani are in the province overall. Now how many Christians?

Among accused Chrestiani, it sounds like the oldest members had joined the 'free lunch cult' casually c.85 AD. Nothing suggests explosive growth of the gentile Chrestiani-Christiani cult at this time and place. Its unclear to me how 'Jesus Christian' or proto-orthodox the movement was at Pontus/Bithynia c.85-112 AD. Might the 'event' bringing Chrestiani to the magistrate's attention have been occasioned by minor local scandal relating to a new 'Jesus Christ' push, first appearing in the small but steadily growing movement in the province? Possible, the letter was saved for posterity.

That is how I assess and understand the letter's data.
Emphasis mine

viewtopic.php?p=129716#p129716

I see that you're "working on it", good. Is the dating of Philip moving towards 0 CE?
User avatar
billd89
Posts: 1339
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2020 6:27 pm
Location: New England, USA

Date

Post by billd89 »

mlinssen wrote: Thu Dec 02, 2021 2:03 amI see that you're "working on it", good. Is the dating of Philip moving towards 0 CE?
My Reply is 6 months old. My first mention of the topic was a year ago, not too long after I joined this forum.
billd89 wrote: Sat Nov 28, 2020 8:27 pm I'm fairly convinced that Christians and Chrestians are NOT identical.
The Chrestiani were more a movement (guessing c.25 BC - 125 AD) than a (one) cult, but it is unlikely Pliny meant there had been 'multiple cults' so-called in his jurisdiction of Pontus/Bithynia c.85 AD. In time, the variety appeared. As the nascent orthodoxy formed, the lumpen Chrestiani (aka 'salvationists') became distinguished as "Gnostics" or "Christians" after c.125 AD. By who? The heresiologists defined the Gnostics, thereafter - winner writes history.

Re: 'Gospel of Philip'
I havent given it any great attention, but I really don't think the 'Gospel of Philip' dates earlier than 150 AD and I suppose it's closer to 250 AD.
perseusomega9
Posts: 1030
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 7:19 am

Re: Buried clues about early Christianity from the context of Pliny’s letters?

Post by perseusomega9 »

Chris Palmero spends 13 hours, 7 episodes of his podcast Born in the Second century laying out the case that the letter is a forgery.

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/b ... 1543281781
Secret Alias
Posts: 18321
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Buried clues about early Christianity from the context of Pliny’s letters?

Post by Secret Alias »

It is worth noting that when I was investigating the Christian origins at Ostia Pliny was related to someone who was said to have been one of the leading Roman Christians in the second century. I am not sure the letter is a forgery.
User avatar
Jagd
Posts: 74
Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2021 4:59 pm

Re: Buried clues about early Christianity from the context of Pliny’s letters?

Post by Jagd »

Secret Alias wrote: Thu Dec 02, 2021 12:14 pm It is worth noting that when I was investigating the Christian origins at Ostia Pliny was related to someone who was said to have been one of the leading Roman Christians in the second century. I am not sure the letter is a forgery.
Interesting! Did you find anything about what the Christian communities of this era were like from this research?
Giuseppe
Posts: 13658
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Buried clues about early Christianity from the context of Pliny’s letters?

Post by Giuseppe »

Note that IF (a great IF indeed) Pliny is a forgery, then the probability increases greatly that the probable source of Tacitus about the Chrestiani was not his friend Pliny, but the books of Josephus himself, i.e. an original Testimonium Flavianum.
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Date

Post by mlinssen »

billd89 wrote: Thu Dec 02, 2021 9:28 am Re: 'Gospel of Philip'
I havent given it any great attention, but I really don't think the 'Gospel of Philip' dates earlier than 150 AD and I suppose it's closer to 250 AD.
Why would you think that?
And why do you think in dates, that must be incredibly difficult to do, in all this Churchian mire

I think it's evident that Philip preceded Christianity:

Philip talks to us on the brink of Chrestianity and Christianity:

101. The Chrism is made lord over the Baptism. For from the Chrism we are called XRISTIANOS not because of the Baptism. And was called the XS because of the Chrism. For the Father anointed the Son, yet the Son anointed the Apostles, yet the Apostles anointed us. He who has been anointed has the totality—he has the resurrection, the light, the cross, the Sacred Spirit. The Father bestowed this upon him in the Bridal-Chamber he received.

The Chrism is the Greek word xrisma, 'anointing'. So far so good, right?

72. The truth did not come unto the world naked, but rather it has come in symbolic images. (The world) will not receive it in any other fashion. There is a rebirth together with a reborn image. It is truly appropriate not to be reborn thru the image. What is the resurrection with its image?—it is appropriate to arise thru the image. The Bridal-Chamber with its image?—it is appropriate to come into the truth thru the image, which is this restoration. It is appropriate for those born not only of the words ‘the Father with the Son with the Sacred Spirit’, but (moreover) are begotten of them themselves. Whoever is not begotten of them, will have the name also taken from him. Yet one receives them in the Chrism of the fullness in the power of the cross, which the Apostles call: the right with the left. For this-one is no longer [a XRηSTI]ANOS but rather a XRS.

Here, in an earlier logion, we see the connection between Chrestians and Chrism: "being born into/by" the words of the Trinity is not enough to become Christians, the anointing is imperative.
It is highly interesting that Philip talks of Apostles and not Disciples: the four gospels speak only of the latter, Romans ff only of the former - and as usual, Acts is the glue in between.
Hebrews, as always, doesn't play along

63. If one goes down into the water and comes back up without having received anything, saying ‘I’m a XRηSTIANOS’, he has taken the name on loan. Yet if he receives the Sacred Spirit, he has the gift of the name. He who has received a gift is not deprived of it, but he who has taken a loan has it demanded from him.

And this logion comes before the other two, and we have a nice sequential story about Chrestianity using Baptism. Yet one must receive the holy spirit before one can call himself CHRESTIAN - not Christian

When, in addition to that, one receives the anointing, then one can call himself XRS - which apparently is a step up from a baptised Chrestian who received the Holy Spirit

101. The Chrism is made lord over the Baptism. For from the Chrism we are called XRISTIANOS not because of the Baptism. And was called the XS because of the Chrism

And here is the "explanation" again, and we witness the evolution of baptised Chrestians who received the Holy Spirit into 'proper' Christians because they also received an anointing.
So not only were there Chrestians; they were also being baptised.
And not only were they being baptised, they were being baptised in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
And still, they weren't Christians at that point

And we see the change of Chrestians into Christians being facilitated by the Chrism, the anointing, which is also put forth as an explanation of the name change

Only 1 John 2 speaks of anointing others than Jesus; was all of the NT written before there was any talk of Christians? The Chrestians in Acts 11:26, 26:28 and 1 Pete 4:15 seem to attest to that, and would confirm Philip's account

User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8789
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Buried clues about early Christianity from the context of Pliny’s letters?

Post by MrMacSon »

mlinssen wrote: Sun Dec 05, 2021 11:13 am
63. If one goes down into the water and comes back up without having received anything, saying ‘I’m a XRηSTIANOS’, he has taken the name on loan. Yet if he receives the Sacred Spirit, he has the gift of the name ...


101. The Chrism is made lord over the Baptism. For from the Chrism we are called XRISTIANOS not because of the Baptism. And was called the XS because of the Chrism.

The Chrism is the Greek word xrisma, 'anointing'
Oil is more substantial than water, huh ?

"The Chrism is made lord over the Baptism" makes me wonder if John the Baptism is a personfication / anthropomorphization of baptism (and if this could be a stage in the process of Jesus beginning to be portrayed as usurping John)
Last edited by MrMacSon on Mon Dec 06, 2021 10:49 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Jagd
Posts: 74
Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2021 4:59 pm

Re: Buried clues about early Christianity from the context of Pliny’s letters?

Post by Jagd »

MrMacSon wrote: Sun Dec 05, 2021 8:30 pm
mlinssen wrote: Sun Dec 05, 2021 11:13 am
63. If one goes down into the water and comes back up without having received anything, saying ‘I’m a XRηSTIANOS’, he has taken the name on loan. Yet if he receives the Sacred Spirit, he has the gift of the name ...


101. The Chrism is made lord over the Baptism. For from the Chrism we are called XRISTIANOS not because of the Baptism. And was called the XS because of the Chrism.

The Chrism is the Greek word xrisma, 'anointing'
Oil is more substantial than water, huh ?

"The Chrism is made lord over the Baptism" makes me wonder if John the Baptism is a personfication / anthropomorphization of baptism 9and if this could be a stage in the process of Jesus beginning to be portrayed as usurping John)
That would certainly make sense. A lot of the gospel material appears to have clear instructional purpose, like some of the healings in Mark that are basically step-by-step guides, or the mission to the twelve, which reads like “this is how you’re supposed to live as a wandering Christian.”
Last edited by Jagd on Wed Dec 08, 2021 12:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Post Reply